But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.

They'll never "beat" it because from what I remember from my physics classes, it's hard to outrun photons at 300.000 km/s :-> ... I wonder what the current and "acceptable" lag for an evf is, I'm sure the manufacturers already have an idea how long they'll keep ovfs around for action shooting.

But that light bounces around in the mirror box on top of your DSLR and takes so long to cover the extra distance

I insist that you try it I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story

I'm positive that using the thing for a week is way different than just for a couple of minutes in an expo - so I can only tell about my first impression with evfs... but dpreview had more time and still came to the same conclusion, that's why I quoted them. But alas, in a decade we're all in for it anyway ;-)

I manage ok with the EVF on my NEX. If you hold the camera still, it's almost like an OVF, very impressive. But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.

But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.

They'll never "beat" it because from what I remember from my physics classes, it's hard to outrun photons at 300.000 km/s :-> ... I wonder what the current and "acceptable" lag for an evf is, I'm sure the manufacturers already have an idea how long they'll keep ovfs around for action shooting.

If you can watch an action movie on your LCD screen, that typically has a 2-8ms response time and 60-100 Hz refresh rate, you can probably also take pictures

Thats what I thought, given your gear list.But the discussion is not whether or not DSLRs are better than iphones, cell phones or P&S.The current discussion is if there is a future for Mirrorless Cameras like the Eos-M, NEX, A7, etc.

Did you read the post? The example given is sticking a super large and comfy eye-piece on the back of the camera, not holding it out in front of you.There are definitely much better places to put the viewfinder than top-center on the camera, another reason to like the Fuji bodies is that the viewfinder is off to the side so I wouldn't be mashing my face into the body all the time. I have to wonder if they couldn't make an SLR with the viewfinder on the side instead of the top.

I've come to appreciate the OVF a lot more as time goes by, and that it doesn't take power is great, but all the lame excuses about fictitious problems with the EVF aren't going to help anyone.

No problem.I just couldn't let a response like that stand without clarification.

Chances are the EVF and OVF will occupy the same marked for quite some time to come. For 99% of subjects they're going to perform nearly the same, especially once you have a transmissive LCD on top of your OVF. In the long term I think whether a person chooses one or the other will be determined by the surrounding features more than the type of viewfinder itself.

It's becoming a moot point - videographers who use DSLRs, don't use the OVF anyway, they get loupes - using the 5D or 7D essentially as a MILC camera. I use a loupe for macro work in live view. If they got rid of the mirror box altogether, they could make a better form factor. Seeing that Canon is emphasizing video and has the dual pixel AF - we may yet get something like that.

I would love a sensibly designed camera with a 3" eye level EVF - could be done. It really makes no sense to have a tiny eye level EVF and a large one on the back - one large eye level one should be fine. We're stuck in the DSLR mindset.

shooting with a long lens, holding thew cam in front of you looking at the live view panel is not the most stable way to shoot!!!! That's why it's designed that way, by holding the camera to your eye you have the perfect balance to get a steady shot. Your elbows basically form a tripod...

Notice too...most video folks also use some kind of harness or a monopod to steady the camera.

So, from a still shooters perspective, it makes perfect sense to have that tiny OVF or EVF. Video has different needs...

I believe the future lies along a different path entirely. I think you give the camera designers of 65 years ago too much credit vis-a-vis the notion that their goal was stability. I don't believe that was the case - I seem to recall reading that their motivation was to avoid the parallax that all rangefinder cameras suffer from.

If you've ever used a Rollei TLR, you would probably agree that they are far more stable (with the neck strap taut and the camera cradled in your hands at waist level) than a SLR held to your face. So perhaps the future is...a digital version of the Rollei 3003 (or Hasselblad 500).

Put a 3-4" retina like display on the top, a full frame sensor (with dual pixel AF) inside, and an EF mount on the front, and you've got a design that would be easy to hold stably, can be used over your head in crowds (like the classic TLR can), and if you really want to use it at eye level, a pentaprism like assembly could attach to the top or back (it could be an EVF or a mirror on the top, on the back it would need to be an EVF). The connector for that optional EVF could feed external monitors (perfect for studio work). External grips could be anything you want.

Most interestingly, the lens mount could be interchangeable. Why not an EF mount, a Nikon mount, a Leica mount, or any other mount you can think of. The flange distance changes as required - the mount that holds the lens mount is the constant - and could contain all the needed electronic connections for any AF lens (or not bother for manual focus).

The basic design could be made by ANY camera manufacturer - in fact, I would almost expect SIGMA (with their Foveon tech) to make such a thing and try to steal some of the business from the other companies.

It's becoming a moot point - videographers who use DSLRs, don't use the OVF anyway, they get loupes - using the 5D or 7D essentially as a MILC camera. I use a loupe for macro work in live view. If they got rid of the mirror box altogether, they could make a better form factor. Seeing that Canon is emphasizing video and has the dual pixel AF - we may yet get something like that.

I would love a sensibly designed camera with a 3" eye level EVF - could be done. It really makes no sense to have a tiny eye level EVF and a large one on the back - one large eye level one should be fine. We're stuck in the DSLR mindset.

shooting with a long lens, holding thew cam in front of you looking at the live view panel is not the most stable way to shoot!!!! That's why it's designed that way, by holding the camera to your eye you have the perfect balance to get a steady shot. Your elbows basically form a tripod...

Notice too...most video folks also use some kind of harness or a monopod to steady the camera.

So, from a still shooters perspective, it makes perfect sense to have that tiny OVF or EVF. Video has different needs...

Put a 3-4" retina like display on the top, a full frame sensor (with dual pixel AF) inside, and an EF mount on the front, and you've got a design that would be easy to hold stably, can be used over your head in crowds (like the classic TLR can), and if you really want to use it at eye level, a pentaprism like assembly could attach to the top or back (it could be an EVF or a mirror on the top, on the back it would need to be an EVF). The connector for that optional EVF could feed external monitors (perfect for studio work). External grips could be anything you want.

One of the things I like about touchscreen interfaces and WiFi is that we are no longer bound by having the viewfinder attached to the camera.... It can be a phone or a tablet 30 feet away.

Thats what I thought, given your gear list.But the discussion is not whether or not DSLRs are better than iphones, cell phones or P&S.The current discussion is if there is a future for Mirrorless Cameras like the Eos-M, NEX, A7, etc.

I know but the larger point I feel is that photography is falling into 2 groups. Smart phone photography and a shrinking group of advanced amateurs and hobbyists. (Not discussing Pros here) and I think I am OK with that. Phones take really good pictures now if the light is not too challenging. Point and shoots are on the way out. The real change here is the folks that used to buy a good DSLR and kit lens and use it for vacation, special occasions or that new baby. That segment may be on the way out for good

The real change here is the folks that used to buy a good DSLR and kit lens and use it for vacation, special occasions or that new baby. That segment may be on the way out for good

Babies become toddlers then small children. Toddlers and kids run...fast and erratically. How well can current smartphones keep up? My superzoom P&S did fine when our first child was a baby. Once she started walking, I got tired of missing 'the moment' due to slow AF and long shutter lag, and that's when I bought my first dSLR.

I think small mirrorless bodies with wifi have potential for travelers. When you're traveling having something relatively small is a big help. If your camera fits in your pocket or a space in your backpack you're more likely to use it. I'm finding DSLRs very cumbersome on holiday. Also, when taking pics of yourself at famous locations and taking group pics with you also in the shot wifi is a blessing. (No more selfie stick!)

So, a camera that is smaller than a dslr and has wifi plus option to change lenses maybe. I think Canon are heading in the right direction with the EOS M2. Shame Canon US don't seem to think so.

If you remove compact P&S and you remove MILC then all you would have is smartphones and DSLRs. There needs to be something in between. What would replace it? That lens with sensor thing Sony made that attaches to your smartphone? Hmmm, I can't see MILC market dying just yet.

Anyone who's used an EOS M can testify to this - they're just plain fun to use! Can't wait for the future of these things, with faster AF and better IQ. Still early days for the M in my opinion.

I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.

There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.

I don't believe I belong to any DSLR-religion. I've used both mirror-less and DSLR (and even film )

I don't bash mirror-less for any other reason than it's a poor technology when coupled with an interchangable lens design.

FWIW the mirror doesn't protect the sensor against dust. The shutter on a DSLR however usually is closed when you change lenses, so that helps perhaps. Still, despite the shutter, dust that gets inside the camera can eventually find its way to the sensor. I wouldn't want to use the shutter as a protective screen anyway, because it is very delicate. Best be careful with lens changes no matter what:)

Being considerate when changing lenses is obviously good advice But the mirror does indeed protect the sensor from being directly exposed to the elements.

Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor.

Exactly. And that's a great protection to have that you just won't get with a mirror-less.

Why's that - what prevents a manufacturer to introduce a sensor protection that shields the sensor on demand when changing lenses? I'm sure they'll come up with something if it proves to be a problem in real life.

Imho this is hardy a reason for mirrored cameras in general, as an analogy: the first dslr models didn't have sensor auto-cleaning, that could have been used to dump digital altogether and stay with film...

The real change here is the folks that used to buy a good DSLR and kit lens and use it for vacation, special occasions or that new baby. That segment may be on the way out for good

Babies become toddlers then small children. Toddlers and kids run...fast and erratically. How well can current smartphones keep up? My superzoom P&S did fine when our first child was a baby. Once she started walking, I got tired of missing 'the moment' due to slow AF and long shutter lag, and that's when I bought my first dSLR.

Strange that I've had 3 work colleagues switch to dslr in the last 3 weeks because they're dissatisfied with smartphones and point and shoot images. One has been been posting amateur product shots from his phone on collectable sneaker websites but wanted something that isolated the subject better. The second was doing something similar and the last one wanted something for travelling. All were presented with options from high end p&s, mirrorless and dslr that suited their budgets. When they went to stores to check them out they ended up with dslr's because they didn't like the evf nor the shutter lag amongst other things. And all chose Canon despite being given other options - 2 x 600d and 1 x 1100d.